Top Law Schools

Patriot1208 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:It just confuses me why everyone gets so worked up over governments issue with drugs. Drugs are not cool, they are not normal, and they are against the law. So just don't fucking do it.

Life must be remarkably simple when you have an IQ of 90.

Awesome dude, people get worked up because most use it to relax and let off stress or when chillin with their friends, yet its against the law and you get fucked for using. Show me health studies that show pot is worse than coffee, and I know drinking is much worse than pot. I honestly cannot beleive that DOJ will disqualify you for recreational marijuana use, I know traders blowin lines of coke during bathroom breaks. Just kind of bullshit and plays more into the whole lawyers suck vibe. And, drugs....are sort of normal, everyone I know enjoys a little toke now and then at least and all of them are successful or doing interesting things. It's kind of a shame that DOJ disqualifies people like this and almost forces them to lie. Why can't I smoke an want to be a part of DOJ? Are all government agencies like this? I can't beleive you get punished for having fun in college.

Lol at the dumbest post i've ever read.

If you are going to work as someone who is explicitly trying to uphold the law, then breaking it regularly is not something that will fly with your employer. And its not just lawyers, its pretty much every job in every federal agency. And the MAJORITY of people have fun while upholding the law. Go back to Ridgemont High, Spicoli.

Anonymous User wrote:This whole debate will be really fun when California legalizes marijuana in a few months.

In any case, I'd certainly love to work for the DOJ and I'd like to think that I have the background, grades, and skills to be an effective advocate for the government. But I also like occasionally smoking pot after work.

The DOJ is certainly within their rights to exclude folk like me from their talent pool, but singling out marijuana users is wrongheaded and ultimately not in the national interest. It used to be that "practicing homosexuals" were also categorically denied security clearance. After all, gay sex was illegal and homosexuals were seen to be craven weak-willed folk. Thankfully we've progressed as a society. Hopefully in the coming years we'll be able to progress a little more.

Patriot1208 wrote:And the MAJORITY of people have fun while upholding the law.

Actually, according to the government itself over half of Americans age 18-35 have used marijuana at least once in their lifetime: http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pub ... t/druguse/

romothesavior wrote:1. So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

2. And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

romothesavior wrote:So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

I mean, I'm all for recruiting law-abiding people, but let's not look at this is strictly black and white.

ggocat wrote:

romothesavior wrote:1. So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

2. And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

1. no.
2. you are not asked this question.

romothesavior wrote:

ggocat wrote:

romothesavior wrote:1. So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

2. And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

1. no.
2. you are not asked this question.

So why did previous posters imply that marijuana use within the last 5-7 years would bar you from DOJ, and why did another poster say that his use of alcohol as a minor slowed up his application process? Genuinely curious...

Patriot1208 wrote:

romothesavior wrote:

ggocat wrote:

romothesavior wrote:1. So if someone tried it once or twice in their junior or senior year of college, and never touched it again, and then was up for DOJ Honors, they would automatically get denied?

2. And if someone admits that they drank alcohol before they were 21, that would be a serious red flag?

1. no.
2. you are not asked this question.

So why did previous posters imply that marijuana use within the last 5-7 years would bar you from DOJ, and why did another poster say that his use of alcohol as a minor slowed up his application process? Genuinely curious...

Read my above post. If you appply to the DOJ honors program at the end of law school, and have not done marijuana since, you will be fine. I'm pretty sure its usually around not within 3 years (this can be flexible, slightly) and not more then like 12 times your entire life. And for me the underage drinking was a problem due to me being 20 when I applied for my TS.

vanwinkle wrote:There are a couple posts I did not out because they might actually link the user (who is kind of dumb enough to use something approaching a real name as a TLS handle) to drug use. However, if he/she keeps posting using the anonymous feature I will out him/her. Everyone else has been outed for abusing the anonymous feature.

Also, policy arguments over drug law and whether it's necessary belong in the Lounge, not the Employment forum. OP needs help with a specific issue, not with whether or not marijuana or other drug use is morally right.

Behave, or else.

romothesavior wrote:VW, I love you. Really I do. And I really appreciate you outing people for abusing the anon feature, because that is annoying.

But we are "behaving." If every poster or thread that strayed a bit from the OP was banned or moved to the lounge, this site would cease to exist.

vanwinkle wrote:

romothesavior wrote:VW, I love you. Really I do. And I really appreciate you outing people for abusing the anon feature, because that is annoying.

But we are "behaving." If every poster or thread that strayed a bit from the OP was banned or moved to the lounge, this site would cease to exist.

I think I'm irritated because half the policy arguments, and especially the worst ones, were being made by "anonymous users". You're right in that things should not be stifled too much, also, I'll agree with that. I want to stay out of things until they really get out of hand, but once they do...

I just want people to be mindful of what they're really saying, and whether they're being helpful or not. These public forums are meant to be helpful, and raging policy debates breaking out in them doesn't help the people who actually need help.

Sometimes that takes a little policy arguing, but people have got to be more civil. Of course, if they weren't hiding under anonymity maybe they would've been more civil in the first place...

Anyway, carry on. I'm starting to derail this thread myself, and I don't want to.

Patriot1208 wrote:I doubt it will carry on as it seems the one proponent of toking up at his lunch break with the DOJ has taken the hint and distanced himself from the thread.

vanwinkle wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:I doubt it will carry on as it seems the one proponent of toking up at his lunch break with the DOJ has taken the hint and distanced himself from the thread.

As one of the people who was posting anonymously, I really hope you've taken the hint as well.

deadhipsters wrote:Hey, this is a little off topic: But, does anyone know what kind of scrutiny applicants to say, the Manhattan DA's Office, are put under in terms of drug use, etc? Is there a polygraph or is this generally limited to Federal jobs?

romothesavior wrote:So basically, if I want the lifestyle of hookers and blow, I should avoid the DOJ? Or just wait til after I get hired?

Patriot1208 wrote:

deadhipsters wrote:Hey, this is a little off topic: But, does anyone know what kind of scrutiny applicants to say, the Manhattan DA's Office, are put under in terms of drug use, etc? Is there a polygraph or is this generally limited to Federal jobs?

I don't have first hand experience like I do with the federal jobs. But there is zero chance there is a polygraph. And probably just a current drug test, with a look into any questionable criminal/credit records.

Patriot1208 wrote:

romothesavior wrote:So basically, if I want the lifestyle of hookers and blow, I should avoid the DOJ? Or just wait til after I get hired?

lol I would say avoid, because your security clearance does have to be renewed every five years (for a TS).

romothesavior wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

romothesavior wrote:So basically, if I want the lifestyle of hookers and blow, I should avoid the DOJ? Or just wait til after I get hired?

lol I would say avoid, because your security clearance does have to be renewed every five years (for a TS).

Looks like I'll be avoiding the Departttment of Justttice then.

Anybody know how many people DOJ takes straight outta LS a year? Pay? What they look for in new hires (besides top grades from top schools)? I mean, I'm sure my little WUSTTTL ass won't be getting DOJ, but I'm curious now. Is there a thread re: DOJ?

MrKappus wrote:

ggocat wrote:??? Eyewitness testimony is sufficient to prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt.

Eyewitness testimony from likely drug users that's nearly a decade old. Sounds like a surefire conviction to me.

deadhipsters wrote:

Patriot1208 wrote:

deadhipsters wrote:Hey, this is a little off topic: But, does anyone know what kind of scrutiny applicants to say, the Manhattan DA's Office, are put under in terms of drug use, etc? Is there a polygraph or is this generally limited to Federal jobs?

I don't have first hand experience like I do with the federal jobs. But there is zero chance there is a polygraph. And probably just a current drug test, with a look into any questionable criminal/credit records.

Great. Thanks. It's odd that NYC pushes the polygraph on NYPD recruits and not prospective ADA's.

Anonymous User wrote:For those who are well informed on the policy:

Let's say regular (once/week) use of marijuana for a period of a year in college, but no use since (and absolutely non since law school, approx. 50 times).

Is this an automatic ding? Likely ding? Non-issue if you admit it?